Re: Open season for paedos in Australia

I would have jailed the father. He is not beating the molester for his own molestation but for someone else's. That is not taking the law in your own hands: that is making yourself policeman, judge, jury and executioner, which is a whole other ballgame. Not having gone to jail, he is now all the more likely to reoffend.

I've never bought the "Xtreme Anger" or "Xtreme Strexx" defences. Denial of agence is all too convenient. For that matter the molester should then have an "Xtreme Horniness" defence, wouldn't he?? If you are willing to use hormones for denial of agency, you have to be consistent in that, not just when it panders to Feminist agendas.

Sancho mentions that he would consider the molestation akin to a burglary. That is only correct if you are willing to walk all of Goethe's mile into propertising your children. The article obviously gives no details (and, from the names disclaimer, it seems to be intentional), but I see little reason to believe that the father is so propertising his son otherwise. Of course, the son now is worth about 25% of his virgin value for sex trafficking and kiddie pronz, so it is a good theory for finding a motive - but only one among many with no evidence either way, at least from the article.

I would also have taken away custody, because, as I said above, he is very likely to do this again, and in a couple of years it is not adult men he is going to be incapacitating, but, most likely, tween and then teen girls. I think we were all girl lovers here?? Doesn't seem so these days...

And finally, I would force him to pay pension to the molester. He incapacitated the molester for work - he should then pay his bills forever. As happens with labour accidents. And as happens in Iran if you rape a girl.

Now, as for the molester, I would still jail him and register him, because there is no "I was beaten already" defence for any crime. Admitting it would be, indeed, to recognise a double jeopardy caused by the father's beating, which in turn implies recognizing the father's beating as properly judicial. In which case his "La Justice c'est Moi" self-appointment is recognised by the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia.

Of course, this generates a series of perverse incentives. Molesters now can seek to be caught red-handed, so that they can be beaten on the spot and therefore escape jail. That, or they will be better armed. Choose your favourite perverse incentive.

Finally, I would also have the child assessed, and very probably sent to juve. With the precedents as both molestation victim (environment) and son to a violent father (genetics), he is probably a ticking time bomb.

Now, on the balance of things, if this means a withdrawal from AOC enforcement by the state, then I consider this a win. Even if parental enforcement remains, a) not all parents will consider underage sex a crime and b) most parents will never know anyway, because children know how to keep a secret. But it is dependent on the state changing its line, withdrawing from AOC enforcement completely and leaving it to parents completely.